We are interconnected and amazingly enough, not that novel. We just think we are, because, perhaps, we’ve been focusing more on a compulsory way of life/proof/mistrust, than on connecting.

Every moment, we are changed. Because of the connecting we do/experience/breath in. How can we claim ownership – as in rights?

[disclaimer – not saying we shouldn’t own our day. perhaps the problem comes when we insist that the day, thoughts, beauty, et al, are anything that only we own. that only we created. that only we can sell or keep from others. it’s about co-creation. share economy. connection economy. and a new/old mindset.]

There is no statement more erroneous than the declaration that “this is my idea”. Such notions are byproducts of a material culture that has been reinforced in seeking physical rewards, usually via money, in exchange for the illusion of their “proprietary” creations. Very often an ego association is culminated as well where an individual claims prestige about their “credit” for an idea or invention.

But if we don’t see ownership is a reified category, an absolute predicate, then the matter is not so simple. Because what is this “ownership”? What is the social agreement that the concept embodies? It is rather different than what we have today.

______

BAMMMMM! Sound of my browser hitting a Taylor and Francis paywall on research paper. $40 to read a paper? WTF WORLD DID WE MAKE?

When one cuts through the rent-seeking politics of intellectual property lobbies like the pharmaceutical companies or Hollywood and the recording industry; when one overcomes the honestly erroneous, but nonetheless conscience-soothing beliefs of lawyers who defend the copyright and patent-dependent industries and the judges they later become, the reality of both theory and empirics in the economics of intellectual property is that both in theory and as far as empirical evidence shows, there is remarkably little support in economics for regulating information, knowledge, and cultural production through the tools of intellectual property law.

This Moose Belongs to Me (public library) — a disarming story about a boy who believes he owns his pet moose Marcel, only to discover that so do other people, who call him by different names, while the moose himself doesn’t quite get the concept of being owned and is thus oblivious to the boy’s list of rules for being a good pet.

[..]

the story is, above all, a parable about the nature of ownership as a mutually agreed upon figment and the comical sense of entitlement it engenders.

[..]

Perhaps Mark Twain put it best in his supportive letter to Helen Keller when she was accused of plagiarism:“Substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources.”

intellectual property is a polite term for govt instituted monopoly pricing rights.. means extraordinarily high patent rights… for phram corps.. to keep price of drugs up and mkae profits astronomical.. probably at least 1/2 of r&d not done by pharma at all.. basic/hard/costly research is done by people like you .. you pay for it through your taxes..

Patents and copyrights also solved the problem of most knowledge being already held by others for centuries or millennia because it granted ownership not to the origin of knowledge but to the first to file patents, almost always western men.

Patents and copyrights are exclusionary rights. They are not rights to do something but rights to stop others from doing it.

the mystification of contemporary capitalist relations rests on the almost permanent re proposition of two terms, the private and the public, which function together as a kind of bait, but correspond to two ways of appropriated the common..

?

in the first case, as rousseau says, private property is an appropriation (the action of taking something for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission) of the common by an individual, expropriating (the action by the state or an authority of taking property from its owner for public use or benefit) it from others;

‘the first man, who, having enclosed a piece of ground, to who it occurred to say this is mine, and found people sufficiently simple to believe him, was the true founder of civil society...

dang.. i hope this is saying what i hope this is saying.. ie: property/mine-ness is killer and foundation of civil society (as in civilization is killer)

how many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors mankind would have been spared by whim who, pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had cried to his kind: beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget that the fruits are everyone’s and the earth no one’s‘..

yeah that..

today private property negates people’s right to share and together care for not only the wealth of the earth and its ecosystems but also the wealth that we are able to produce by cooperating w one another.. rousseau’s indignation at the injustice of private property remains today as viral as it was over 200 yrs ago

where rousseau was so lucid and sever when identifying private property as the source of all kinds of corruption and cause of human suffering, he stumbles when he confronts the public as a problem of the social contract.. given that private property creates ineq ..as rousseau says.. how can we invent a political system in which everything belongs to everyone and to no one..

property and sovereignty .. are intimately mixed in the twinned operation s of possession and exclusion..

the need to defend id and its privileges.. sometimes eclipses all other goals.. id and property thus have a double relation in right wing populisms: id serves a sa privileged means to property and also as a form of property itself.. which promises to maintain or restore the hierarchies of the social order

the violence of religious id’s – one key to understanding many religious movements today is the way they combine the defense of religious id w resentment against alien powers..

the focus on the purity and stability of id is why religious movement often tend toward dogmatic closure .. and why religious movements can communicate and mix so freely w movements based on racial or civilization id..

55

the cult of id, religious fanaticism, and social conservatism are interwoven in a deadly and explosive mix of sad passions ta nourish violence and totalitarian tendencies..

56

religious movements thus line up w disastrous political projects: saintliness is offered to those who hate and destroy…

57

ghandi’s key insight, we think which remains equally vital today is that no religion per se but religious id, the construction and defense of a religious people, leads inevitably to violence and barbarity, and must be destroyed..

the refusal of property is thus not only essential to spiritual transformation, according to franciscans, but also to a life of plenitude.. poverty is not the absence of wealth, but perhaps paradoxically, its fundamental precondition: ‘everything for everyone’ .. to cite a zaptista slogan..

in the capitalist world poverty became inextricably linked to exploitation.. the poor tend to become no longer slaves, beasts of burden, untouchables at the margins of the human race, but instead integrated and subordinated as producers..

59

the proletariat, a multitude of re sellers of labor power who have nothing else to sell and no other means to survive is cast in a ‘second nature’ constructed by capital and reinforced by theological justification of the work ethic and the hierarchies of the social order.. the poor are invited to participate responsibly in their own exploitation, and that will be considered a dignity.. .. capitalist asceticism becomes the damnation of the poor and exploited..

marx, after denouncing the poverty of workers, links that poverty to their power, in the sense tha in capitalist society the living labor of workers, although stripped of the means of production is ‘the general possibility of material wealth’.. that explosive mix of poverty and potential represents a mortal threat to the private ownership fo the means of production..

a second response (to precarity and poverty – first is to double down on id).. refuses the siren calls of id and instead constructs, on the basis of our precarious condition, secure forms of life grounded in the common

vulnerability of the poor, disabled… forces us to recognize the ineluctable dependence on other that all of us share.. the development of circuits of interdependence.. are the primary (perhaps the only) path to a real security..

this combo of precarity and possibility is expressed esp powerful in the lives of migrants.. multitudes that cross over, around and thru national boundaries have the potential to undermine fixed id’s and destabilize the material constitutions of the global order

these subjectivities, ever more mixed, are increasingly able to evade the fusional, identitarian powers of control.. undermine the hierarchies of traditional id’s.. in the inferno of poverty and in the odyssey of migration resides a new power..

61

again.. the essence of the franciscan project: poverty as not deprivation but a state of wealth and plenitude that threatens every sovereign and transcendent power.. practices of nonproperty … once again have revolutionary potential in the struggles of the common against teh financial power of capital..

even deeper: does poverty contain the seeds of a radical refusal of id and the creation instead, of an antagonistic, multitudinous subject grounded in the common?.. there is indeed a sacrilegious, corrosive element in poverty

________

thread.. via rt by kevin carson

Thaminga Vesemxoq/Ӿgʋozg Hᶗyᶗʋmϣɟ (@mxvesemxoq) tweeted at 5:30 PM – 8 Aug 2018 :
the only thing copyright law serves to protect as it exists today is business profits, and that’s about it; we too would be better off without it, reform that puts stricter protections on artists more easily hurt by infringement isn’t going to happen as long as capitalism exists. (http://twitter.com/mxvesemxoq/status/1027336359529332736?s=17)